MR. CALHOUN'S NEW DOGMA ON TERRITORIAL SLAVERY: SELF-EXTENSION OF
THE SLAVERY PART OF THE CONSTITUTION TO THE TERRITORIES.
The resolutions of 1847 went no further than to deny the power of
Congress to prohibit slavery in a territory, and that was enough
while Congress alone was the power to be guarded against: but it
became insufficient, and even a stumbling-block, when New Mexico
and California were acquired, and where no Congress prohibition was
necessary because their soil was already free. Here the dogma of
'47 became an impediment to the territorial extension of slavery;
for, in denying power to legislate upon the subject, the denial
worked both ways--both against the admission and exclusion. It was
on seeing this consequence as resulting from the dogmas of 1847,
that Mr. Benton congratulated the country upon the approaching
cessation of the slavery agitation--that the Wilmot Proviso being
rejected as unnecessary, the question was at an end, as the friends
of slavery extension could not ask Congress to pass a law to carry
it into a territory. The agitation seemed to be at an end, and
peace about to dawn upon the land. Delusive calculation! A new
dogma was invented to fit the case--that of the transmigration of
the constitution--(the slavery part of it)--into the territories,
overriding and overruling all the anti-slavery laws which it found
there, and planting the institution there under its own wing, and
maintaining it beyond the power of eradication either by Congress
or the people of the territory. Before this dogma was proclaimed
efforts were made to get the constitution extended to these
territories by act of Congress: failing in those attempts, the
difficulty was leaped over by boldly assuming that the constitution
went of itself--that is to say, the slavery part of it. In this
exigency Mr. Calhoun came out with his new and supreme dogma of the
transmigratory function of the constitution in the _ipso facto_,
and the instantaneous transportation of itself in its slavery
attributes, into all acquired territories. This dogma was thus
broached by its author in his speech upon the Oregon territorial
bill:
"_But I deny that the laws of Mexico can have the effect
attributed to them (that of keeping slavery out of New Mexico
and California). As soon as the treaty between the two countries
is ratified, the sovereignty and authority of Mexico in the
territory acquired by it become extinct, and that of the United
States is substituted in its place, carrying with it the
constitution, with its overriding control over all the laws and
institutions of Mexico inconsistent with it._"
History cannot class higher than as a vagary of a diseased
imagination this imputed self-acting and self-extension of the
constitution. The constitution does nothing of itself--not even in
the States, for which it was made. Every part of it requires a law
to put it into operation. No part of it can reach a territory unless
imparted to it by act of Congress. Slavery, as a local institution,
can only be established by a local legislative authority. It cannot
transmigrate--cannot carry along with it the law which protects it:
and if it could, what law would it carry? The code of the State from
which the emigrant went? Then there would be as many slavery codes
in the territory as States furnishing emigrants, and these codes
all varying more or less; and some of them in the essential nature
of the property--the slave, in many States, being only a chattel
interest, governed by the laws applicable to chattels--in others,
as in Louisiana and Kentucky, a real-estate interest, governed by
the laws which apply to landed property. In a word, this dogma
of the self-extension of the slavery part of the constitution to
a territory is impracticable and preposterous, and as novel as
unfounded.
It was in this same debate, on the Oregon territorial bill, that
Mr. Calhoun showed that he had forgotten the part which he had
acted on the Missouri compromise question, and also forgotten its
history, and first declared that he held that compromise to be
unconstitutional and void. Thus:
"After an arduous struggle of more than a year, on the question
whether Missouri should come into the Union, with or without
restrictions prohibiting slavery, a compromise line was
adopted between the North and the South; but it was done under
circumstances which made it nowise obligatory on the latter. It
is true, it was moved by one of her distinguished citizens (Mr.
Clay), but it is equally so, that it was carried by the almost
united vote of the North against the almost united vote of the
South; and was thus imposed on the latter by superior numbers,
in opposition to her strenuous efforts. The South has never
given her sanction to it, or assented to the power it asserted.
She was voted down, and has simply acquiesced in an arrangement
which she has not had the power to reverse, and which she could
not attempt to do without disturbing the peace and harmony of
the Union--to which she has ever been adverse."
All this is error, and was immediately shown to be so by Senator
Dix of New York, who produced the evidence that Mr. Monroe's
cabinet, of which Mr. Calhoun was a member, had passed upon the
question of the constitutionality of that compromise, and given
their opinions in its favor. It has also been seen since that, as
late as 1838, Mr. Calhoun was in favor of that compromise, and
censured Mr. Randolph for being against it; and, still later,
in 1845, he acted his part in re-enacting that compromise, and
re-establishing its line, in that part of it which had been
abrogated by the laws and constitution of Texas, and which, if
not re-established, would permit slavery in Texas, to spread
south of 36° 30'. Forgetting his own part in that compromise, Mr.
Calhoun equally forgot that of others. He says Mr. Clay moved the
compromise--a clear mistake, as it came down to the House from the
Senate, as an amendment to the House restrictive bill. He says it
was carried by the almost united voice of the North against the
almost united voice of the South--a clear mistake again, for it was
carried in the Senate by the united voice of the South, with the aid
of a few votes from the North; and in the House, by a majority of
votes from each section, making 134 to 42. He says it was imposed on
the South: on the contrary, it was not only voted for, but invoked
and implored by its leading men--by all in the Senate, headed by Mr.
Pinkney of Maryland; by all in the House, headed by Mr. Lowndes,
with the exception of Mr. Randolph, whom Mr. Calhoun has since
authentically declared he blamed at the time for his opposition. So
far from being imposed on the South, she re-established it when she
found it down at the recovery of Texas. Every member of Congress
that voted for the legislative admission of Texas in 1845, voted
for the re-establishment of the prostrate Missouri compromise
line: and that vote comprehended the South, with Mr. Calhoun at
its head--not as a member of Congress, but as Secretary of State,
promoting that legislative admission of Texas, and seizing upon it
in preference to negotiation, to effect the admission. This was on
the third day of March, 1845; so that up to that day, which was only
two years before the invention of the "no power" dogma, Mr. Calhoun
is estopped by his own act from denying the constitutionality of
the Missouri compromise: and in that estoppel is equally included
every member of Congress that then voted for that admission. He says
the South never gave her sanction to it: on the contrary, she did
it twice--at its enactment in 1820, and at its re-establishment in
1845. He says she was voted down: on the contrary, she was voted up,
and that twice, and by good help added to her own exertions--and
for which she was duly grateful both times. All this the journals
and legislative history of the times will prove, and which any
person may see that will take the trouble to look. But admit all
these errors of fact, Mr. Calhoun delivered a sound and patriotic
sentiment which his disciples have disregarded and violated: He
would not attempt to reverse the Missouri compromise, because it
would disturb the peace and harmony of the Union. What he would not
attempt, they have done: and the peace and harmony of the Union are
not only disturbed, but destroyed.
In the same speech the dogma of squatter sovereignty was properly
repudiated and scouted, though condemnation was erroneously derived
from a denial, instead of an assertion, of the power of Congress
over it. "Of all the positions ever taken on the subject, he
declared this of squatter sovereignty to be the most absurd:" and,
going on to trace the absurdity to its consequences, he said:
"The first half-dozen of squatters would become the sovereigns,
with full dominion and sovereignty over the territories; and the
conquered people of New Mexico and California would become the
sovereigns of the country as soon as they become territories of
the United States, vested with the full right of excluding even
their conquerors."
Mr. Calhoun concluded this speech on the Oregon bill, in which
he promulgated his latest dogmas on slavery, with referring the
future hypothetical dissolution of the Union, to three phases of
the slavery question: 1. The ordinance of '87. 2. The compromise
of 1820. 3. The Oregon agitation of that day, 1848. These were his
words:
"Now, let me say, Senators, if our Union and system of
government are doomed to perish, and we to share the fate of
so many great people who have gone before us, the historian,
who, in some future day, may record the events tending to so
calamitous a result, will devote his first chapter to the
ordinance of 1787, as lauded as it and its authors have been,
as the first in that series which led to it. His next chapter
will be devoted to the Missouri compromise, and the next to the
present agitation. Whether there will be another beyond, I know
not. It will depend on what we may do."
These the three causes: The ordinance of 1787, which was voted
for by every slave State then in existence: The compromise of
1820, supported by himself, and the power of the South: The Oregon
agitation of 1848, of which he was the sole architect--for he was
the founder of the opposition to free soil in Oregon. But the
historian will have to say that neither of these causes dissolved
the Union: and that historian may have to relate that a fourth cause
did it--and one from which Mr. Calhoun recoiled, "_because it could
not be attempted without disturbing the peace and the harmony of the
Union_."